Download Hayne-Webster Debate Excerpt Reading/Worksheet

Hayne-Webster Debate Excerpts
This U.S. Senate debate is considered by some to be the greatest debate in the history of the U.S. Senate. Taking
place in the last week of January 1830, the three day debate between Robert Hayne (Democrat-South Carolina)
and Daniel Webster (Whig-Massachusetts) defined many issues of the day, including the expansion of slavery,
sale of Western lands, the “Tariff of Abominations,” whether the U.S. government should be funding “internal
improvements” and -- perhaps most importantly -- whether states have the ability to “nullify” federal laws.
Hayne contended that the War of 1812 was fought on behalf of Northern commerce, even though New
Englanders opposed the war. He says New Englanders affirmed the same rights of nullification and secession at
the 1814 Hartford Convention that Virginia and Kentucky resolutions affirmed in what he calls the “Revolution
of '98." He also contended that the same New England states that in 1830 denounced nullification were the ones
promoting it in 1814.
Hayne argued (like Jefferson and Madison) that the states created the union and that the states are the ultimate
judges of what is constitutional; Webster countered that the union pre-existed the American nation and that the
only proper judge of constitutional violations is the U.S. government itself.
Robert Hayne's First Reply to Webster
South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne (Democrat)
Sir, the party to which I am proud of having belonged from the very commencement of my political life to the
present day, were the democrats of ’ 98. Anarchists, anti-federalists, revolutionists, I think they were sometimes
called. They assumed the name of democratic republicans in 1812, and have retained their name and their
principles up to the present hour. True to their political faith, they have always, as a party, been in favor of
limitations of power; they have insisted that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved,
and have been constantly struggling, as they are now struggling, to preserve the rights of the States, and prevent
them from being drawn into the vortex, and swallowed up by one great consolidated Government....
[On the Federalist/Whig sentiments during the War of 1812] ...The “beacon fires” of their hills were lighted up,
not for the encouragement of their friends, but as signals to the enemy; and in the gloomy hours of midnight, the
very lights burned blue. Such were the dark and portentous signs of the times, which ushered into being the
renowned Hartford Convention. That convention met, and from their proceedings it appears that their chief
object was to keep back the men and money of New England from the service of the Union, and to effect radical
changes in the Government; changes that can never be effected without a dissolution of the Union....
Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those who would confine the federal government
strictly within the limits prescribed by the constitution—who would preserve to the States and the people all
powers not expressly delegated—who would make this a federal and not a national Union—and who,
administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. And who are
its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the States and
adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the States and the
people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. But, Sir, of all descriptions of men, I
consider those as the worst enemies of the Union, who sacrifice the equal rights which belong to every member
of the confederacy, to combinations of interested majorities for personal or political objects. But the gentleman
apprehends no evil from the dependence of the States on the Federal Government; he can see no danger of
corruption from the influence of money or of patronage....
The South Carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in an exposition reported by a committee of
the Legislature in December, 1828, and published by their authority, is the good old Republican doctrine of ’ 98,
the doctrine of the celebrated “Virginia Resolutions,” of that year, and of “Madison’s Report,” of ’ 99. It will be
recollected that the Legislature of Virginia, in December, ’ 98, took into consideration the Alien and Sedition
Laws, then considered by all Republicans as a gross violation of the Constitution of the United States, and on
that day passed, among others, the following resolution:
“The General Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal
Government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense
and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by
the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise
of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and
are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their
respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
...[T]he Legislature of Virginia re-affirmed all the principles laid down in the resolutions of ’ 98, and issued to
the world that admirable report which has stamped the character of Mr. Madison as the preserver of that
Constitution, which he had contributed so largely to create and establish. I will here quote from Mr. Madison’s
report one or two passages which bear more immediately on the point in controversy. “The resolution having
taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous
exercise of powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in
duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits,
the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."
...Sir, our authorities do not stop here—the State of Kentucky responded to Virginia, and on the 10th November,
1798, adopted those celebrated resolutions well known to have been penned by the author of the Declaration of
American Independence. In those resolutions the Legislature of Kentucky declare, “that the government created
by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself: since
that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other
cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as
well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Daniel Webster's Second Reply to Hayne
Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster (Whig)
Who, then, shall construe this grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they
have left it doubtful? With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of government?
Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. They have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate
branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted,
was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through State agency, or depend on State opinion
and State discretion. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the Confederation.
Under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the States.
Congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanctioned
them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet at the mercy of State discretion and State construction? Sir, if we
are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit.
But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for
settling questions of Constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and
restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore,
necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants,
restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority.
How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of
the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is
declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any
Mr. Eddlem
law of the United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom
lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, "That the judicial power shall
extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions cover the
whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a
confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress established, at its very first session,
in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional
power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. It then, Sir, became a government. It then had the means of
self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. Having
constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must
decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject always, like other popular
governments, to its responsibility to the people...
I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind.
I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken
asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short
sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs of this
government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved,
but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the
Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifiying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I
seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my
vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun
in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on
States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal
blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known
and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster,
not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory
as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but
everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea
and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American
heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!
Reflection
1. What part of the U.S. Constitution does Daniel Webster cite to justify the idea that nullification is
unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution does Hayne cite to argue it is constitutional? Who's right? Why?
2. What is the logical argument Hayne has for engaging in a history lesson that reminds Webster about the
Hartford Convention? What is the practical political purpose is behind the history lesson (i.e., what advantage
does it give to the Democrats over the New England-based Whigs)?
3. Webster starts his argument with logic, but ends his speech with an emotional argument that is one of the most
cited speeches in history. Why do you suppose that politicians do this?
4. What does Daniel Webster argue is the ultimate authority in determining the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of a law passed by Congress? What does Hayne argue is the ultimate authority?
5. In your opinion, is Hayne right in claiming that both Jefferson and Madison had supported South Carolina's
view that nullification is the ultimate right of the states? Why or why not? Why does Hayne resort to claiming
these two former presidents (Jefferson is dead, Madison is alive at the time) for South Carolina?
6. James Madison's personal letters from 1828 through 1833 indicate that he opposes the "Tariff of
Abominations" as being poor economics and bad policy. But he also criticizes South Carolina's threat to nullify
the law. How does this square with his writings on the Virginia Resolutions?
7. Was the "Tariff of Abominations" constitutional or unconstitutional in your view? Why or why not? And was
South Carolina's response constitutionally justifiable? Why or why not?
8. If the federal government goes beyond the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, what can the states do
to protect their citizens?
9. Do you think that Daniel Webster was right that the union preceded the Constitution? Do you think that the
people who ratified the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the states thought (at the time they ratified it in 1787-90)
that they would never be able to get out of the union?